Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Anders Breivik: Paleoconservative Activism Or Beta Rampage?

At the time I wrote my last blog post, I believed I would probably become Norway's first modern violent activist in peacetime. Celibacy enforced by a feminist regime had driven me to the point where I saw no other option. I would target the pigs who enforce feminist law, knowing I could realistically at least kill one of them before I would be captured or killed myself. Thus revenge would be assured and if I lived, my reputation as a violent criminal would make me attractive to some women. But then in the nick of time this blog attracted a lovely girl commenting as "Emma." It turns out her real name is Nataliya and she is now my girlfriend. No actual violence was necessary, and it looked like Norway would be a peaceful place for now. I knew things are seriously amiss around here and that neither feminism nor multiculturalism is sustainable in the long run, but I had no idea a formidable activist named Anders Behring Breivik was already years into meticulously planning an attack that would show the entire world what Vikings are made of.

On July 22, 2011 the social democratic regime in Oslo was struck by violence so spectacular it took us all by surprise. The ruling class of a country has never, as far as I know, been so systematically and viciously assaulted by a single individual. The bombing of government offices was impressive enough, but the shooting spree which followed was mind-bogglingly effective, literally decimating the crème de la crème of aspiring young politicians for the ruling Labor Party. The ethics of shooting defenseless teenagers at summer camp can be questioned, to say the least, but it sure was a brilliant way to strike at the core of the Norwegian political elite. These are the next generation of political leaders, and what better way to terrorize the parents – the current top holders of political office – than going after their kids? As Glenn Beck has observed, the AUF youth at Utøya are reminiscent of Hitler-Jugend. Utøya is where leftist kids come to be indoctrinated every summer, steeping themselves in liberal propaganda and listening to inspirational speeches by current and former social democratic leaders such as Gro Harlem Brundtland. In retrospect, it was extremely thoughtless by the ruling class not to post a single armed guard at this event. Politics is serious business after all, and such a hotbed of recruitment concentrated on an island with no easy escape is an obvious target for political enemies, if you think about it. I guess they were still under the illusion that Norway is an idyllic place which somehow does not foster violent malcontents no matter how downtrodden we get.

Indeed, the perpetrators of the evils against men I've chronicled on my blog are the direct maleficiaries of Breivik's aggression. While I am as prone to feeling sympathy for innocent-looking kids as the next guy, and I too feel this atrocity was a bit excessive, then the ugly face of the scumbag Knut Storberget keeps appearing in the news to remind me that this was not an attack against the innocent. Storberget is the main poster boy for feminist corruption of justice, and there is no fucking way his presence can evoke anything but hatred. The corrupt nature of the Norwegian justice system hits home also when, as Breivik appeared at the hearing Monday, the court closed its doors and conducted its business in complete secrecy, admitting neither the public nor the press. They shamelessly did this by request of the cops in order to prevent Breivik from addressing the public. And Storberget is already starting to exploit the situation by agitating for a stronger police state.

Fortunately, Breivik was able to release a manifesto which is now so widely disseminated that they have no hope of censoring it. It could be better, marred by plagiarism as well as lack of proofreading (for obvious reasons, this could not be outsourced), but overall, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence is fairly decent and contains much truth. While I cannot get behind Breivik’s entire program (for one thing, as a libertarian, I strongly support freedom of religion, though I acknowledge the problems associated with Islam gaining influence in Europe), he does, at least, understand sexual politics:

Females have a significantly higher proportion of erotic capital than males due to biological differences (men have significantly more prevalent sexual urges than females and are thus easily manipulated). The female manipulation of males has been institutionalised during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminisation of men in Europe. This highly underestimated factor has contributed to the creation and rise of the matriarchal systems which are now dominating Western European countries. European women, in light of the feminist revolution, are now considerably more influential than men due to the sum of all forms of capital. (p. 1180)

From this follows also the fact that rape is equality, as I have pointed out, though it is unclear if Breivik has yet to grasp this point. He seems lamentably politically correct in some ways and at times spouts feminist drivel of the worst kind, such as, “Ethical dilemmas which involve sex can often appear in situations where there is a significant power difference or where there is a pre-existing professional relationship between the participants, or where consent is partial or uncertain” (p. 1173). This is the kind of feminist tripe used to legitimize the worst sex laws against men, and sadly he appears to have internalized it.

Nonetheless, Breivik was sufficiently angered by the Norwegian feminist/Marxist regime to attack it with the utmost vengeance. As was I before I got a girlfriend; the difference being my relative lack of conscientiousness and restraint in expressing my views. As a very public MRA already on the radar for intending violence, there would be no way I could purchase the ingredients to make a bomb without arousing suspicion; and even if I could, I would be unlikely to have the patience and diligence to complete a clandestine project on such a scale. But I would still be able to make a bloody nuisance of myself.

Breivik is being called insane right now for fancying himself at war with the establishment, and apparently regarding some newly founded incarnation of the Knights Templar as the legitimate authority in Europe. While that does seem a bit grandiose and perhaps fictitious, we must not forget that his perspective spans more than 60 years. By 2083, it is entirely possible, I think, that we may go through a civil war in Europe, the outcome of which is uncertain. I will not be surprised if Breivik turns out to be a greater hero in the long run to more people than the Marxist “traitors” he executed. Now he will surely gain a bevy of female admirers, as well.

Being born just one year apart, we grew up under similar circumstances. Norway today is a society sick to the core. It is a place which breeds monsters out of the betas and omegas in a sexual market increasingly skewed against males. I am not sure Breivik is properly considered just another beta going on a rampage out of sexual frustration (Breivik seems to me so idealistic his actions transcend sexuality, but then again it is usually a mistake to think men do anything at all for any reason other than to get laid), as fellow Roissysphere blogger Whiskey contends, but I know how close I was to such a rampage myself, and undoubtedly we will see increasing violence if feminist sexual politics is allowed to continue. I don’t particularly have a dog in the Christian vs. Islam fight (maybe this shows bad character, but I would not be averse to convert to Islam if that was the way to get laid), and now that I have a girlfriend I am not out in the front lines attacking feminists, either, but I remain politically aware, and recent events have been a step in the right direction insofar as they demonstrate a willingness among conservative men to revolt against the heretofore completely dominant left.

96 comments:

falcon
said...

"I am not sure Breivik is properly considered just another beta going on a rampage out of sexual frustration as fellow Roissysphere blogger Whiskey contends"

Definately not. Breivik wrote about the difficult choice between marrying a "cute girl", have a family, and sacrificing himself to save Europe. A raging omega doesn't have that choice, furthermore he seemed to have been quite sociable, tall with good looks.

"it sure was a brilliant way to strike at the core of the Norwegian political elite"

It was spectacular but the next batch of leftie kids are probably already jostling for their chance. This action will not do anything about the overwhelming power of progressives in the social arena. Before you start a revolution, you have to build an infrastructure that is able to replace the old guard, you have to be able to compete on an equal level in the propaganda game. Breivik thought there was no time to lose so he started with violence anyway, hoping everything would take care of itself if nationalists would just follow his recommendations.

"this was not an attack against the innocent"

You stay true to your reputation as expected. Many of these brainwashed kids just simply never heard another viewpoint in their lives; the media and school teachers confirming everything they heard from their parents.

Your gf is lovely indeed. You're a much luckier guy than so-called alpha Kevin McDonald with his ugly dimwit skanks. You'll never ever think again about the beastly woman that broke your heart (Elena was her name?)

Good to see you again, my friend. I knew you would have to have something to say about this. This truly fascinates me as a common man from Canada. I recall thinking that you were very very radical when I read your blog last year. And now this Anders fellow has erupted and it is all very powerful to me. I thought you were an outlier, that if all you could do was be patient then things would be alright, and soon you would be banging women. But now this Anders fellow has changed everything and I think you must be quite serious - that things really are that bad in Norway for (young) men.

-off topic: I understood that you got an undergrad degree in Latin, and now I see you are pursuing a graduate degree in Latin. What in the name of God are you doing that for? Will you teach Latin in some obscure department at a Norwegian university?

I have seen Emma commenting at Roissy's and I assumed she was an American. But anyway, congratulations. Honestly, I thought a woman would be disgusted by your writing. I am not saying that to depress you, it's just the truth. But she saw through it and concluded you have some courage. I actually thought you were a courageous guy, myself.

I've never been to Norway, but Canada has a reputation for being a feminist country, but also we tolerate prostitution, and we do not chase after johns. So there is a lot of freedom for men who need to release their sexual energy and not have to be afraid of being arrested. So please tell me again why it is so bad in Norway.

You say Islam and multiculturalism don't bother you. But for Anders this was his big problem. Anders had only 15 pages of his manifesto dedicated to feminism from what I understand. So are you and Anders totally different in worldviews?

Even though it was murderous, I must admit it is impressive. He killed those whom he hated, and he did it because he really believes he is at war. How left-wing is Norway? Please at least describe some social policies so I can tell how far left-wing you are. Do you have a Minister of Equality? A Minister for Women? I am very curious. Thank you. And nice to see you back blogging and congrats on the gf. Good luck to you and to all Vikings.

I'm very glad to hear about the girlfriend. Jeg gratulere deg. Nataliya? Is she Russian (or thereabouts?)

As for Breivik, I'm not sure what to make of him. The first thing it reminded me of was the Chinese bachelor freakouts. I'm thinking the bomb downtown was just to distract attention (and rescue resources) while he carried out his real plan - killing the kids of the elite he hated.

Weirdness: I've heard that the police that arrested him called out to him by name (?!?) How?

I'm also not sure I trust anything he wrote. I think (judging from how often he reinvented himself via some new ridiculous costume) that he had multiple issues and they weren't necessarily in contact with each other.

Evidently this post is generating a lot of attention and some misunderstanding. Unfortunately, during the past few days I have been so busy moving to a new apartment that I haven't had time to reply to comments. Sorry about that. I will get around to answering now.

Firstly, I do indeed believe in the non-aggression principle, which of course is what defines a libertarian. However, as long as the state does not abide by this principle, it is consistent with libertarian ethics to use violence against the state to redress the oppression caused by social engineering. This is closely related to self-defense. Norway is a feminist state using the coercive power of the state to engineer "equality" between the sexes in every way but what counts for men, which is sex. This leads to women getting more picky than they otherwise could afford to be, and I believe men disenfranchised by this have a moral right to use aggression to defend themselves, whether by attacking feminist enforcers or coercing sex out of women directly.

I did not exactly endorse Breivik's actions, however, and even less his ideology, but it seems some people can't read very well, so they think I am just like him. In truth, we have very little in common, especially if he truly is motivated by the ardent nationalist idealism he claims rather than sexual frustration exacerbated by feminism (which is a problem he does acknowledge, but it seems rather tangential to his crusade for a pure Christian Europe).

Hey there, I'm Eivind's girlfriend. Emilie 22, I'm not with him for the money, since we both have about the same amount, which is not very much. He treats me very well and he's not the terrible person that he appears to be on the internet. Some of his bad reputation comes from people misunderstanding his writings, I feel. He did not say he supported ABB and what he did.To people who think it's a good idea to kill me and Eivind's whole family because you don't like his views, even though we did nothing wrong: how are you better than Andrers B. B. then?

It amuses me that you leave out the bad set of genes and ugly face in your analyzis of past endeavours to get laid. And blame it all on nature of our society. If you could enter a time machine and go to any place in history to get laid. Where would you go?

To clarify, I don't condone this massacre. In all my anti-feminist rantings it has never even occurred to me to advocate anything like Breivik did at Utøya.

I don't believe anyone deserves to be killed merely for their opinions (even though I get threatened a lot myself for my views). It feels funny having to say this, but I guess now it's called for.

Attacking the actual enforcers of unjust laws is another matter, but I would never have anything to do with hunting down and killing peaceful participants of a political rally, many of whom too young to even vote.

I regard myself as quite mellow these days, after I'm no longer celibate. So it's ironic that I'm being singled out as an extremist after my aggression has been tempered, and I was never even that evil to begin with.

If you could enter a time machine and go to any place in history to get laid. Where would you go?

Assuming I would enter that place as a man of random status (and thus couldn't choose to be, say, an ancient potentate), I would pick the most sexually egalitarian society. Enforced monogamy is best for the greatest number of men. As far as I know, Western culture before feminism gave the average man the best chances of getting laid. Just about any man could get a wife. So I am in complete agreement with the Knights Templar that the European cultural model from the 1950s is the most superior society. Feminism allows women to express their hypergamy fully, which leads to all kinds of social problems including aggression from involuntarily celibate men.

And no, I don't deny that other factors also influence a man's sexual success or lack thereof. All I am saying is feminism is one reason it is much harder for ordinary men to get laid today.

You should have chosen post-WW2 Russia perhaps... Due to shortage of men, women were kind of desperate, and would fight over you no matter how "beta" you were, and the only requirement would be that you could work (and if you were a slacker, they'd make you work).

I thought about that, but then I felt the question was more along the lines of what would be an ideal society, and I don't think having millions of men recently killed off is a situation to strive for. But sure, purely for getting laid, the aftermath of a great war must be a good time.

If you believe that "rape is equality" - imagine if I raped your mother because I felt I was entitled to. Or your sister. Or your daughter, if you ever have one. (Which I hope you don't.)

The solution for your anger is not to start hating every woman who doesn't want to sleep with you. The solution is to build yourself up as a man and become positive, outgoing, strong, alpha, more like the best of what men has to offer.

When you say "I wish I were a pickup artist", you have already given up. You don't truly wish, or else you would actually try to become more like one.

You have NO problems whatsoever, you are one of the luckiest people of the planet, just by being a Norwegian and having every possibility anyone can dream of. Realize this, get your shit together pronto and start building the life you want instead of complaining.

I give my wholehearted support to emilie 22. You DO have an ugly face! How dare you strike at the uttermost core of our society's mindset? Have you ever considered plastic surgery? Incarceration might be the best thing for you! Maybe you'll strike lucky and be given some good advice about skillful surgeons? I know at least one person more than willing to share his experiences. Unfortunately he seems to be in solitary confinement for the time being. But mind you, I have some advice to given myself actually! I did struggle with an ugly face myself during childhood. But I saved up all my money (believe me it was hard, as an extreme supporter of the Norwegian labour party, I was very meticulous about paying all my taxes, and all the VATs as well, several times) I underwent plastic surgery in the US in order to look like my hero Jens Stoltenberg! Unfortunately I spent half my money on a plane ticket and a bottle of water at the airport. But the surgeon was a warmhearted man, and came up with a reasonable downpayment plan. I should pay him 60 percent of my earnings over the next ten years and he would give me the Storberget makeover! But he gave me a ferocious warning, if my payment plan failed, he would alter my looks to that of Gro Harlem Brundtland! Having that in mind, I of course did as I was told. Now I can raise my head high when I walk out the door, knowing that my looks are approved by polite society! Who are you to challenge a God descent gift like Stoltenberg? This bigotry must come to an end or you will most certainly perish in flames! Cryonics will do you no good then!

Ragnarkisten,It's a little late for me to do anything now. People will think what they want. I'm used to it. But it wouldn't hurt to try to make this better. I'm a person who is for judging people by their actions, not by how they look like, what they are born as or what they say. I have been around "crazy" people plenty, not to mention regular frustrated people. I'm used to people saying they want to kill this or that person. Yet so far none of them did, and they remain my friends. I'm not a violent person myself and perhaps instead of hating me, people should feel both sorry for me (because I'm "stuck" with an anti-feminist) and feel positive about me (since I'm keeping him from violence). But perhaps I'm too optimistic about people in general when I say this, and they will self-righteously condemn me just for being associated with E. B.

You are absolutely right of course. You are a true humanitarian keeping this terrorist in spe busy. Granted people often tend to come off as more cynical over the internet, but I know for a fact that this specimen is far worse in real life. And if you hear suspicious country music from the fridge one day, know that you can always count on my moral support.

Your gf is lovely indeed. You're a much luckier guy than so-called alpha Kevin McDonald with his ugly dimwit skanks. You'll never ever think again about the beastly woman that broke your heart (Elena was her name?)

Thanks. Her name was Elisa and yes, I am over her now. She wasn't beastly though. She was beautiful.

Let me see if I'm getting this right: You are using an unaimaginable tragedy as yet an opportunity to whinge about Norwegian society and the fact that women don't want to sleep with you? Newsflash: Women do not exist in order to satisfy your sexual urges, whether they are Scandinavian feminists or underage girls forced into prostitution in Thailand. Women are human beings, just like men.

I'm not sure what else to say, except that it sounds like you need to get some perspective in your life. Get out there, do some volunteer work, work at an old people's home, see people who actually have nothing, people who are handicapped, people who suffer from chronic illnesses, people who have been abused, people who have lost their children.

There is a whole world out there, so pull your privileged head away from your selfish crotch for a second and do some good.

Oh, and it case things don't work out between you and your girlfriend and you want some advice on how to get to know women: Go easy on the rape talk, won't you? Girls seem to have a hard time being romanced by someone who talks about "rape as equality".

Most of you wouldn't know what a valid argument was if your life depended on it, but in the meagre hope of reaching out to perhaps one or two of you, I'll give it a try.

Let's say one group in society advocated violence against another group, although they obscured this fact from plain view, by virtue of being the dominating, brainwashing force of society. In that case, someone like Eivind might appear and say "Look, if violence against group A from group B is acceptable, then surely violence against group B from group A must be deemed equally acceptable".

If people were anything like we see here, it would set off a volley of threats and irrelevant comments, with almost everyone missing the point. The relevant part of "Rape is equality" is not advocating rape, just as advocating violence is not the relevant part of pointing out that violence against one group is equally right or wrong when violence is advocated against that group by an opposing group. It's merely pointing out the fact that by violently enforcing a feminist regime that reduces male sexuality to a value even lower than its original negative value, rape is an opposing force for the other side in the conflict. The best means to end the conflict would of course be to end violent feminist enforcement, not to start raping.

You guys wouldnt understand irony if your life depended on it. What E B is doing is comparing rape to affirmative action. I think this point has been spelled out quite clear already! But if you cant read, than why bother explain anything?

I havent had this much fun reading these comments, since I watched soft-porn on German tv-channels from the 70s, way back in the 90s!

Please. There is no enforced celibacy in Norway. No-one is excluded by enforced law from getting laid, but getting sex by means of violence, by exploitation or by paying for it (rape, sex-trafficking and prostitution) is prohibited. This is an attempt by the state to enforce everyone’s right to govern their own body, surely you agree that we all have that right? You might think that making buying sex illegal is not the right way to secure this right, but that is a different question.

You claim that men have a greater sexual appetite than women and say: “From this follows also the fact that rape is equality”.

There is no such fact. The raped woman does not have the same power as her rapist. So much should be clear.

Further, even if it is the case that men have a greater average appetite for sex than women, and that this gives women some sort of power over men (but honestly - think about what kind of power this would be!!?? How could it ever come close to balancing political or economic power??!) - this would NOT legitimate raping them! Thinking so would be like saying that because men are, on average, stronger than women we are justified in mutilating them. It is like saying that because more boys than women are born each year, we are justified in killing some of them … They are all totally flawed arguments. Mutilating men or killing boys would also restore some sort of macabre “equality”, but it would not be justified even if the society in question had sought by law to work against for instance economic and political inequalities. Granting everyone the same political and economic rights, and seeking to eradicate inequalities of economic and political power does not violate our human rights. Allowing the rape or exploitation of women to make men and women’s “sexual power” equal, does.

You claim that you don’t support Breivik’s action, but your apologetic description of it and your clear admiration renders your claim wholly implausible. Let me quote you to illustrate:

“The bombing of government offices was impressive enough, but the shooting spree which followed was mind-bogglingly effective, literally decimating the crème de la crème of aspiring young politicians for the ruling Labor Party. The ethics of shooting defenseless teenagers at summer camp can be questioned, to say the least, but it sure was a brilliant way to strike at the core of the Norwegian political elite.”

“While I am as prone to feeling sympathy for innocent-looking kids as the next guy, and I too feel this atrocity was a bit excessive, then the ugly face of the scumbag Knut Storberget keeps appearing in the news to remind me that this was not an attack against the innocent.”

Using words like “impressive”, “effective” and “brilliant” to describe Breivik’s action while merely questioning its ethics, saying it is “a bit excessive” is as close to supporting it as you can come.

Calling the victims at Utøya merely “innocent-looking”, and implying that they were not innocent (“this was not an attack against the innocent”) is atrocious. They had committed no crime. They had harmed no-one. They were exercising their political rights! They were debating, trying to shape their political opinions by reasoned argument and thorough thinking (rather than by letting their sexual frustration overpower them like it seems to have done you.) What crime are you accusing them of? Will you not allow them the political rights you yourself enjoy?

“I will not be surprised if Breivik turns out to be a greater hero in the long run to more people than the Marxist “traitors” he executed.”

How is this different from supporting Breivik… especially since you call his victims “Marxist ‘traitors’”? I am appalled.

“recent events have been a step in the right direction insofar as they demonstrate a willingness among conservative men to revolt against the heretofore completely dominant left.”

Finally, you cannot say that calling Breivik’s actions (which other “recent events” could you be referring to?) a “step in the right direction” is not to actively express your support of them.

Further, even if it is the case that men have a greater average appetite for sex than women, and that this gives women some sort of power over men ... this would NOT legitimate raping them!

Indeed it would not, and I never said so. I base my justification of rape solely on the existence of affirmative action enforced to benefit women. If affirmative action for women is fair, then so is sexual coercion to redress the imbalance of sexual opportunity for men.

Maybe men have a greater appetite and/or ability for attaining leadership positions and thus end up ruling most often. The justification for using affirmative action (which is just a euphemism for violence) to institute equality makes exactly as much or little sense in either case.

But you have missed my points. I know you did not try to justify rape. My argument was against your analogy between decreasing inequalities in political and economic power by law (which, I grant you, involves enforcing the law, with violence if necessary), and decreasing "inequalities in sexual-physical" power by means of rape (i.e. an act of extreme violence).

Using rape (or murder or mutilation) as a political means is, as even you grant, unjustifiable. Hence you cannot just draw on your analogy, you have to provide some good arguments for why seeking, by law, to decrease political and economic inequalities between the sexes is wrong. Your argument by analogy does not work. You cannot just say “If affirmative action for women is fair, then so is sexual coercion to redress the imbalance of sexual opportunity for men.” While the latter clearly involves violating fundamental rights, it is not clear that the former does so…

You also have to argue that it is unjust that there is an “imbalance of sexual opportunity for men”. I have great difficulty in understanding why an “imbalance of sexual opportunity for men” should have anything to do with justice. I understand that it might be frustrating and hurtful not to be gratified sexually, but is it a violation of your rights? Does it involve anyone treating you unjustly?

p.s. I also wonder about this concept of sexual power. It is not a power women can exchange for political power; the more they have of it, the more they are harassed at their work places and the less seriously they are taken in politics. It is also very undesirable for most women to try and exchange it for money by entering into prostitution. It is a “power”, it seems, that they can only use to get sex! And honestly, wouldn’t you agree that having political power, economic freedom and security is more important than getting sex? Even more so when we consider that the "sexual power" of a woman is a "power" most women, if they possess it at all (not all of us are surrounded by men..) possess only until they reach the age of about 40 (at most) .. in short "sexual power" is worthless compared to political and economic power. Furthermore, you have to admit that men possess “sexual power” as well. They choose their partners as well, manifesting itself in the fact that highly educated women with good salaries have trouble getting married. Another consideration is that political and economic power are both easily cashed into "sexual power". Men with political power and economic power seem to be more sexually attractive to women in our society, they have the means to choose. Finally, the “sexual power” of men does not decrease with age to the same extent that the “sexual power” of women does. All in all, I cannot see that this system works for the benefit of women at all, quite the opposite!

Hence you cannot just draw on your analogy, you have to provide some good arguments for why seeking, by law, to decrease political and economic inequalities between the sexes is wrong

Yes, there is one piece missing from my argument as I just stated it. Biologically, in the mating game, a man's extrinsic resources are equivalent to women's bodies. Men have basically no intrinsic value and highly limited ability to attract the opposite sex simply by offering our naked selves. So you simply cannot treat men's material wealth and political power as something independent of sexuality. Feminist "equality" belies the fact that men do everything we do in order to get laid, and when you forcibly limit our ability to gain influence and wealth so that we can get women, this gives rise to my argument that rape is equality.

Affirmative action violates fundamental rights for men every bit as much as rape does for women because nothing is more fundamental than mating. It is at least as important for men to get in a position to attract women as it is for women to avoid rape. Remember also that women are hypergamous, so men don't get very far by simply being equal to the women they seek.

"There is no enforced celibacy in Norway. No-one is excluded by enforced law from getting laid, but getting sex by [...] paying for it [...] is prohibited."

You manage to contradict yourself in you two first full sentences. Nice going. What you conveniently skip is that a large percentage of men are repulsive to the opposite sex, so they need money or other resources to get it. If they're prohibited from offering resources, they can't get any sex, under the obviously fake pretense of protecting them. That's why most societies have arranged marriages, so there won't be a lump of unmarried, unhappy men ready to explode like there is in Norway and a lot of other counties now. And when they do explode, it's all a mystery and nothing could be done except taking away free speech and they were all obviously insane and ungrateful for all the celibacy Norwegian feminists violently forced on them.

Congratulations on the girlfriend thing. I knew you could do it. You're really too cute, too smart, and too independent thinking for some girl with functioning parts not to fall for you.On the topic, I think in his mind Breivik was a soldier. I don't think that's any crazier than any other soldier. The difference is that his cause is currently unpopular, and the teenagers among those he killed belonged to those in power.Like any other soldier, he seemed to understand the risks going in. He'll likely do his time with a smile.I feel sorry for the duped kids who died on the altar of their parents' greed. I feel no sympathy for the parents. They curse their own families for power as surely as if they had made a deal with the Devil...and Breivik was just the "White devil" to come to collect.Honestly, though I don't think everybody should run out and start murdering these people's kids, more guys should be White devils. There was a time when people were scared of you. Bring that back, and folks with bad intentions will be less likely to want to live in your countries.

Can anyone tell me why I look brainwashed? I agreed with some of Eivind's views (like involuntary celibacy being a male problem, and that prostitution law being stupid), but lots of other people agree with me on those, not just him.

Chris Rock said it best, where he sort of pointed out how things were unfair for men. He once said in one of his acts that women get their vaginamony and other things they got accustomed to with the threat of state violence, but men don't get the sex they got accustomed to with the threat of government violence.

While I don't agree with Eivind, with me agreeing with Chris Rock, the only thing that makes Chris Rock not "radical" is that he made people laugh while saying what he thought, but Eivind says things in a different tone.

Sometimes I don't know what to think of Eivind, sometimes I think he is quite intelligent, and other times I think he is way off, and obsessed. I have never thought he is evil though. Mostly misunderstood, with the masses not even willing to listen to what he has to say, and just want to shout him down.

BTW, I am not surprised Eivind has found a girlfriend. People tend to be drawn to people most like their selves. No one should feel sorry for Emma, she is most likely just like him. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to the individual.

Eivind is right about one thing though, his infamous blog has brought some vagina to him. Again, I am not surprised.

I am a feminist; however there are many differences I have with other women who consider themselves feminists, and like there are differences between liberals, or conservaitves, there are among feminists.

Unlike other feminists, I am entirely open to an honest conversation with any critic, so as to hear their honest and honourable feedback (if they are capable of such), and if enough evidence is provided, to amend my relevant feminist perspective; or even to discard feminism altogether.

I have not yet met such an anti-feminist; so I wonder whether many of these anti-feminists, only call themselves such, to get themselves a little following of men who simply hate women, and rather than focussing on healing the divisions, instead wish to make women the source of their pity party. They - like blacks, and all other minorities (including some feminists (not all)) - wish to jump on the 'poor us victims' bandwagon.

So, before I go any further, I'd like to find out: Would you be interested in an honest honourable conversation on these issues; as time permits? Not to prove either one right or wrong, but to attempt an honest dialogue, instead of a mud 'we hate you' slinging match?

I shall post a copy of my comment invitation, including your post above, to: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored; and hope you will consider a discussion of these matters.

I am working on my personal interpretation of feminism et al; for your response. You are correct it is not called the 'personal responsibility' movement; that is what I call it; and my preference is also for what you refer to as cognitive liberty. I have little time for the personal growth you refer to, for the same reasons you state. It is for exactly that reason that I don't use the term 'personal growth', but personal responsibility! ;-)

Anyway, my attention is now focussed on clarifying my current working hypothesis perspective on the issue of feminism and the gender wars! ;-)

Bio

Also known by the pen name Arpagus, I am a libertarian and an antifeminist (not to be confused with misogynist). Unlike many bloggers I proudly assert my earnest opinion under my real identity even though it may get me excluded from polite society or worse.